FST JOURNAL

The predictions of Francis Fukuyama in his book ’The end of History and the last Man’ were wrong when he said that, with the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet-Union,  liberal democracy would be the final form of government for all nations.

 Some experts predicted that ‘state-on -state ‘warfare was a thing of the past. Notwithstanding this, our nation maintained its strategic deterrent and the principle of Continuous at Sea Deterrence(CASD). In the late 90s and 2000s our nation embarked on a series of counter terrorist wars (or operations) that were by choice and not essential.

 The invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 may have been necessary post 9/11, but having savaged Al-Qaeda and forced the remnants into the Pakistan Fata, allied forces should have withdrawn and left the Afghans to it. Instead we lost focus and it all ended in the ignominious panicked withdrawal in August 2021. The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was unnecessary and a mistake. When our forces withdrew in May 2011 the country was in a mess.  Prolonged anti-terrorist campaigns in central Asia are not the UK military’s forte. And it had warped defence spending. However, the Treasury were delighted as fighting terrorists demands far less military expenditure than fighting with a peer nation in state-on-state conflict. Defence expenditure was cut dramatically, particularly in the Coalition’s 2010 defence review.

Warnings ignored

 The UK is an Island and the maritime is vital for its wealth and security. Terrorists can have only limited impact in the maritime environment so inevitably the diminished defence spending became army and air-force centric for more than a decade. This was despite the fact that SDR 1998 had stressed the importance of the maritime to our Nation and included an intention to build two new large carriers as an essential part of our maritime capability. Ship numbers were cut and areas of expertise such as anti-submarine warfare neglected. All maritime patrol aircraft were then removed from our inventory.

 Events of recent years have shown what an error it was to think the world and mankind had changed. The Balkan war of the 90’s should have been a warning. It was a warning ignored by most European members of NATO and the EU, who have taken the aspiration for a peace dividend to greater lengths than the UK. Defence spending has been steadily reduced and these reductions continued even after Putin’s annexation of Crimea. Continental NATO forces are in no sense ready for war. The US found this difficult to accept as they were effectively bank-rolling European security. Unsurprisingly Putin drew the conclusion that Europe would avoid war at any cost. That is partly why we are in today’s parlous situation.

 Initially, we all thought we could do business with Putin, but he has become progressively more hard-line leading Russia to occupy Crimea in 2014 and invade Ukraine in February 2022. He is leading what is effectively a rogue state and threatening European and world peace.

 China is strengthening her financial grip on nations involved in her ‘Belt and Road’ initiative, threatening navigation in the South China Sea and menacing Taiwan.

 War rages in Sudan. The invasion of Gaza by Israel has raised the spectre of war with Iran and in the Southern Red Sea the Houthis are attacking global shipping. Suddenly we are confronted with the possibility of war breaking out between NATO and Russia. And UK joining an alliance in war against Iran.

 Demand for defence while spending is cut

 In July 2016 Parliament approved the replacement of the Vanguard class SSBN with the Dreadnoughts and new nuclear warheads; a hugely expensive undertaking that was at the limit of our industrial, scientific and engineering capability. So in military spending terms we are faced with the perfect storm.

 Since the end of the Cold War defence spending has been progressively cut from 4.8% of GDP to 2.3% of GDP, and service manpower from 300,000 to 150,000.

 It takes time to deliver most aspects of defence capability. One cannot just turn on a tap and expect it. Some areas such as cyber, small drones, Artificial Intelligence, engineering biology; future telecommunications semiconductors; and quantum technologies can be turned around quickly but most hardware and platforms have long production timescales. And yet the world situation demands capability now.

 The government have at long last woken up to the need for an increase in defence spending with an intent to go up to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. A good first step but too little too late.

They have however added an extra £500m to the £2.5Bn annually to support Ukraine and identified, boats, armoured vehicles, long range missiles and ammunition to be supplied from our armed forces. This is a good thing because if Putin is not stopped on Ukrainian soil we may have to stop him on NATO soil.

 However, war stocks were one of the areas that was run down when MoD (Ministry of Defence) planners took the risk that Fukuyama was right. Wars against terrorists do not demand vast stockpiles of ammunition and weaponry, but against a peer adversary they do. We have been slow in rectifying this shortfall. For example, when we start giving away ammunition stocks we should ensure the firms involved  have built into their structure the capacity to replace those stocks at speed. The government should fund manufacturers to have shadow factories ready to be opened up when a national emergency arises.

 There is also real doubt as to whether we have sufficient qualified personnel to train the Ukrainians and our own armed forces should they need to expand. Defence firms will need more highly skilled workers. Do we have sufficient? I doubt it.  

 The Nuclear arena

 This has become particularly apparent in the nuclear arena where there are insufficient scientists and engineers to deliver the new warhead programme. The AUKUS agreement (a trilateral defence partnership between Australia, the UK and the US which was announced in September 2021- is important and good news for the UK but demands work on a new stream of SSNs (nuclear-powered general-purpose attack submarines). This comes at a time when Barrow is still trying to deliver the last Astute class submarines and the new Dreadnought class.

 This nuclear programme of work should be seen as a national endeavour. The UK shipbuilding enterprise requires a strong order book to be able to invest for the long term and improve its competitiveness. It needs a rolling programme and a more strategic approach facilitating access to finance. SMEs have a real problem unless there is a drumbeat of orders which we should commit to, even if some of the spend is years away.

 The cry from the Treasury and others is that there are huge inefficiencies in MoD spending and that by resolving these, no extra funding will be required. This is simplistic nonsense. Year on year so called efficiency savings have resulted in weaker less capable forces.

 Long term thinking

 A long term view is required. For example, the carriers had £1.5 billion added to their cost because the Treasury demanded a straight funding line from the MoD, which they achieved by stopping work on them for two years. Equally, we are now desperately trying to get enough frigates into our Navy because we took too long ordering them. There is also a debate to be had about Sovereign capability and national resilience. We need to maintain certain skills and production capability so that we are not in the thrall of an outside player at a time of national emergency. For example nuclear submarines, satellites, crypto, steel, sonars and so the list goes on. Some have already been compromised.

 One wonders whether the MoD considers wider employment, industrial and economic factors in its value for money assessments of where to procure defence systems. And indeed whether the Treasury factor in the ‘Contribution of Defence to UK Prosperity’ in procurement decisions.

 A number of new lessons have been learnt from the war in Ukraine and old lessons relearned. What is clear is that new technology seldom sidelines the old but rather enhances it. So money is not saved but more needed. The use of drones at scale has been an eye opener but hasn’t removed the need for artillery and armour. The efficiency of new anti-aircraft and anti-missile  systems has to be factored in but the efficacy of multi million pound missiles shooting down cheap drones will have to be addressed.

 Strong armed forces are a crucial deterrent and therefore prevent war. They also have utility in a number of other ways, particularly in terms of national resilience and should be properly funded. In the final analysis they are there to fight and win against the King’s enemies.